Gonzales et al v. Comcast Corporation, No. 1:2010cv01010 - Document 77 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING in PART and DENYING in PART Comcast's request to seal documents. Comcast's request to seal Exhibits C, D, E, G, and H is DENIED; and Comcast's request to seal Exhibits N, O, P, and Q is GRANTED. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/7/2011. (Timken, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gonzales et al v. Comcast Corporation Doc. 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 ALFRED GONZALES and KELLY GONZALES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 11 12 Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-01010-LJO-SKO ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART COMCAST'S REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS v. 13 14 15 COMCAST CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10 Inclusive, Defendants. / 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Plaintiffs Alfred Gonzales and Kelly Gonzales ("Plaintiffs") filed this putative class action 19 suit on May 3, 2010, in Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. 1, ¶ 1.) According to the First 20 Amended Complaint, Comcast Corporation ("Comcast") is a provider of cable television, among 21 other things, for which Plaintiffs contracted for service. In September 2008, Plaintiffs attempted to 22 cancel their Comcast services, however Comcast allegedly continued to withdraw monthly service 23 fees from Plaintiffs' bank account beyond Plaintiffs' date of cancellation, despite that Plaintiffs' 24 account had been closed and their equipment returned for nearly a month. (Doc. 56, ¶¶ 12-13, 16.) 25 Plaintiffs allege that Comcast engages in unfair business practices of refusing to clearly identify the 26 termination date of customer accounts, provides convoluted final bills, and intentionally uses 27 "confusing so-called 'final bills' to increase its profits." (Doc. 56, ¶ 20.) 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The action was removed to this Court by Comcast on June 3, 2010. On November 30, 2010, 2 the parties entered into a stipulation for a protective order of confidentiality with regard to discovery 3 documents. (Doc. 28.) This proposed stipulated protective order ("protective order") was signed 4 by the Court on December 17, 2010. (Doc. 29.) 5 On August 22, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Representative 6 Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel ("Motion for Class Certification"). (Doc. 64.) On September 26, 2011, 7 Comcast filed an opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In addition to its opposition 8 papers, Comcast requested that the Court seal certain documents attached as exhibits to the 9 declaration of Bryan Merryman that was filed in support of Comcast's opposition. The documents 10 that Comcast desires to file under seal were lodged with the Court and served on Plaintiffs. No 11 opposition to Comcast's sealing request was filed. 12 For the reasons set forth below, Comcast's request to seal Exhibits C, D, E, G, H, N, O, P, 13 and Q to the declaration of Bryan A. Merryman filed in support of Comcast's opposition to Plaintiffs' 14 Motion to Certify Class is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 15 16 II. A. DISCUSSION Legal Standard 17 Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and may provide access 18 to court documents at its discretion. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) 19 (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). A motion to seal documents 20 implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 21 records and documents." Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. at 597 (footnote omitted). 22 In the Ninth Circuit, there is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. See 23 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (stipulated order 24 without more insufficient basis to seal court records). The right to access is not absolute, however, 25 and can be overridden where the interest of the parties in sealing documents outweighs the public 26 interest. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. at 602. The factors a court should consider include the 27 "public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could 28 result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade 2 1 secrets." Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434 (quoting EEOC v. Erection Co., Inc., 900 F.3d 168, 170 (9th 2 Cir. 1990)). The decision whether to seal a particular document is "left to the sound discretion of 3 the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the 4 particular case." Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. at 599. 5 B. Comcast's Request to Seal Exhibits C, D, E, G, and H to the Declaration of Bryan Merryman 6 On September 26, 2011, Comcast filed a request that the Court seal certain exhibits attached 7 to the declaration of Bryan A. Merryman filed in support of Comcast's opposition to Plaintiffs' 8 Motion for Class Certification. (See Doc. 75-3.) Exhibits C, D, E, G, and H, which Comcast lodged 9 with the Court and asserts should be sealed, include copies of the Comcast billing invoices sent to 10 Plaintiffs as subscribers of Comcast's services. Comcast asserts that 47 U.S.C. § 551 prohibits 11 Comcast from publicly disclosing personally identifiable information about a subscriber, and thus 12 it seeks to seal Plaintiffs' billing invoices contained in Exhibits C, D, E, G, and H. 13 Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 551, a cable operator "shall not disclose personally identifiable 14 information concerning any subscriber without the prior written or electronic consent of the 15 subscriber concerned and shall take such actions as are necessary to prevent unauthorized access to 16 such information by a person other than the subscriber or cable operator." 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(1). 17 1. Exhibits E, G, and H 18 With respect to Exhibits E, G, and H, Plaintiffs have already filed these documents and made 19 them publicly available on the docket, by filing the documents as Exhibits 4, 6, and 7 to the 20 Declaration of Kevin F. Ruf. (Doc. 66-4, 66-6, 66-7.) Plaintiffs submitted a sealing request to the 21 Court, requesting that these documents be sealed because Comcast had marked them "confidential" 22 pursuant to the parties' stipulated protective order that was signed by the Court. Pursuant to the 23 protective order, a party seeking to file confidential documents must first seek an order permitting 24 the documents to be filed under seal. Other than the protective order, Plaintiffs articulated no basis 25 to seal the documents beyond the fact that Comcast had marked the billing statements "confidential" 26 when it produced them in discovery. (See Doc. 71.) Comcast's request to seal documents to protect 27 Plaintiffs' privacy when the documents have already been made publicly available by Plaintiffs 28 3 1 themselves is moot. Although Comcast requests that Exhibits E, G, and H be sealed out of "an 2 abundance of caution," there is little point in sealing documents to protect the privacy of cable 3 subscribers who have already made the documents publicly available. (See, e.g., Doc 66-4, 66-6, 4 and 66-7.) The request to seal Exhibits E, G, and H is DENIED. 5 2. 6 Exhibits C and D are also Comcast invoices billed to Plaintiffs. These documents provide 7 information that is redundant to those provided in Exhibits E, G, and H (which Plaintiffs filed 8 publicly) in all respects except as to the ultimate amount that is billed. Exhibits C and D 9 As discussed above, Plaintiffs have already made documents containing their subscriber 10 information publicly available by attaching them to the declaration of Kevin F. Ruf that was filed 11 in support of their Motion for Class Certification. (Doc. 66.) Exhibits C and D do not contain any 12 additional individually identifiable information that Plaintiffs have not already disclosed publicly. 13 Thus, there is no basis to seal these documents as the subscriber information contained in the 14 documents is already part of the public domain by the express action of Plaintiffs. Comcast's request 15 to seal Exhibits C and D to the declaration of Bryan A. Merryman is DENIED. 16 B. Exhibits N, O, P, and Q to the Declaration of Bryan Merryman 17 1. 18 Comcast contends that Exhibits N, P, and Q contain Comcast's voluntary disconnect, porting, 19 and refund policies which encapsulate its business strategies developed from research, market 20 studies, and experience in the industry. Comcast asserts that public disclosure of these materials will 21 jeopardize Comcast's ability to compete in the marketplace. Access to court documents has been 22 denied where the documents contain business information that might harm a litigant's competitive 23 standing. See Warner Commcn's, Inc., 435 U.S. at 598 (citing Schmedding v. May, 85 Mich. 1, 5-6 24 (1891) and Flexmir, Inc. v. Herman, 40 A.2d 799, 800 (N.J. Ch. 1945)). Here, the issue is whether 25 Comcast's interest in protecting its trade secrets outweighs the presumption of public access to 26 judicial records and any promotion of public understanding of the judicial process that access to the 27 documents would provide. Warner Commcn's, Inc., 435 U.S. at 602-03. Exhibits N, P, and Q 28 4 1 Although Comcast does not specify how public disclosure of these documents will jeopardize 2 Comcast's ability to compete, the documents do contain internal details about various Comcast 3 procedures. The information is obviously proprietary, and, as Comcast points out, disclosure of the 4 information is unlikely to promote the public's understanding of the judicial process. Therefore, the 5 Court finds that the presumption of public access to these records is outweighed by the potential for 6 harm to Comcast should such proprietary information be publicly disclosed. Comcast's request to 7 seal these documents is GRANTED. 8 2. 9 Exhibit O contains data related to Comcast's escalation policies. Comcast asserts that this 10 exhibit contains proprietary information related to customer inquires about Comcast services as well 11 as complaints and issues that Comcast has addressed in dealing with its customers. Comcast 12 maintains that, if this information is publicly disclosed, it will allow Comcast's competitors to exploit 13 these complaints, which might have serious business consequences for Comcast. Comcast also 14 contends that there is no way to meaningfully redact the information. Exhibit O 15 After reviewing the information Comcast seeks to seal with respect to Exhibit O, the Court 16 finds that such information is highly proprietary and the presumption of public access to the 17 document is outweighed by the risk of harm to Comcast if the information is publicly disclosed. 18 Therefore, Comcast's request to seal Exhibit O is GRANTED. 19 C. Documents Filed by Plaintiffs As Exhibits to the Declaration of Kevin F. Ruf 20 Exhibits N and O to the declaration of Bryan A. Merryman contain documents that the Court 21 finds should be sealed. Copies of documents contained in these exhibits were also included by 22 Plaintiffs as exhibits to the declaration of Kevin F. Ruf filed in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class 23 certification and should be sealed pursuant to Comcast's request. Thus, the following exhibits to the 24 declaration of Kevin F. Ruf shall also be sealed: Exhibit 13, 15, and 21. (Doc. 66-13; 66-15; 66-21.) 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 5 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Comcast's request to seal Exhibits C, D, E, G, and H is DENIED; and 4 2. Comcast's request to seal Exhibits N, O, P, and Q is GRANTED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: ie14hj October 7, 2011 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
